Haystacks

I found an interesting article about how the public's ignorance about how DNA matching works (and the FBI's work to ensure that it stays that way) when DNA is used to generate leads in cold cases by being compared to large databases.

The general gist goes like this. DNA matching works on markers - the more markers, the lower the probability that I've hit a coincidental match. The numbers that most people think of when they think about DNA matching (the FBI's standard numbers), say that the chances of a coincidental match are vanishingly remote - perhaps one in trillions. But that relies on 13 markets. Start bringing that number down, and the chances of a match start climbing. Got only five markers? Well, now you're in the one and about 1.1 million range. Sure that seems pretty small. But, if I'm applying that to a database of DNA samples and looking at any hits that come back - if there are one million samples in the database, I'm nearly assured of getting one hit - even if the actual perp isn't in the database at all. So in cases where there is no other evidence, and only a few markers, DNA isn't all that it's been cracked up to be. But, as the saying goes: They don't want you to know that. And therein lies the story.

Of course, the point could be made that if someone has their DNA in a national offender database, they must have done SOMETHING. (Although this is where I point out that in the United Kingdom, they take a DNA sample if they arrest you for causing a serious traffic accident.) It must be remembered, that the point behind the justice system is not simply putting bad people, or even people who have done bad things behind bars – it must be to sanction people for an individual bad act that they've been clearly connected to. Many people already have some difficulty in keeping "Has been arrested for a crime" and "Absolutely guilty" straight. We should take a hard look at law enforcement when they start attempting to undermine what should be legitimate questions, and muddy the water even further.

Swing - And A Foul

So I find this book - 11,002 things to be miserable about. Thinking "this could be amusing," I picked it up. What I found I had was a lesson in doing one thing well, rather than two things poorly. The book never seemed to make up its mind as to whether or not it was attempting to be serious or satirical. I'm not sure what one would do with a book that does nothing other than list a little over eleven thousand things that one should actually be miserable about, so it seems that satire is the way to go, and entries like Velvet Elvis paintings and Cupcakes bear this out. So I could have done without the actual downers, like Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and Dying before your parents do.

Gambled, and Lost

The Value of Facts

In today's installment of "But You Already Knew That," NPR brings us a story of research that "suggests that facts may not be as important as one's beliefs" when it come to taking in new information. While the idea that people's receptiveness to new information correlates very strongly with how well that information fit in with what they already believe is about as shocking as the idea that water is wet, the idea that people tend to filter information through their value structure does lead one to wonder why.

Personally, I suspect that it's because people tend to want to see their values as being based on facts - therefore giving them both license and incentive to disregard facts that would contradict it. In other words, once a value structure comes to presume certain facts, those presumed facts become evidence that contradictory purported facts must be incorrect. Which leads me to my own Theory of How to Be Open Minded: keep one's values and one's facts separate. Which, by the way, is today's installment of "Easier Said Than Done." But you already knew that.

Springtime

After a short Winter (I think it was a Thursday), Spring has come to the Puget Sound area. Which is a very good thing. Even though people around here tend to be utterly terrified of snow, the complete lack thereof makes everything that isn't an evergreen depressingly barren for a good third of the year. So the first springtime buds and blooms are a welcome sight.